Planning for Reading: Three Steps

Chapter 5 in Gibbons is loaded with practical ideas for reading in a class with English Language Learners (ELLs). The first thing that struck me, however, was the emphasis she gave to pre- and post-reading activities. When I think of reading a story to a class, I don't think of the time before and after reading as being too significant. But Gibbons makes it clear that it is important, especially for ELLs. Even her ideas for what can go on during the reading itself were innovative for me. To guide my writing, I will choose one example to discuss from each reading period (pre, during, and post).

PRE: Predicting the genre and the topic of a text (p. 85) seems like it would be very helpful to them. After all, not knowing what was going on before I read the laundry passage (p. 80) made it a real bear to get through, let alone to understand. For ELLs, this activity is even more crucial. From my own second-language learning, I know that it is more difficult to gather these pieces of information in a second language; however, it is even more important to do so in a second language, because it's much easier to get lost without genre and topic knowledge. Finally, predictions arouse curiousity; kids want to see whether they were right, and this gives them an incentive to listen closely and attend to the meaning of the text as a whole, not simply the meaning of each word or phrase.

DURING: Rereading a text is something I've rarely considered when it comes to elementary school literacy. Yet it makes sense: how many times in the recent past have I read through passages over and over in order to gather their precise meaning? (The answer: lots.) Further, giving children multiple, varying experiences of the text (being read by the teacher, read individually, read as a group, etc.) can peak their interest. Especially for ELL students, getting something more than once in more than one way can be helpful if they missed something the first time, or if they didn't understand it orally but got it by reading it (or vice versa). I like what the author says about dictionary use (p. 88). Often, misunderstandings can be solved by using the context in which the word is found. This helps students understand how word-meaning operates, and reduces their reliance on other's decontexualized definitions.

AFTER: Innovating on a story, once again, is something that's never come to my mind. If I think of post-reading at all, I think of asking a question or two about the story and then calling it a day. Innovating gives children the opportunity to make connections between related characters in the story and other similarly related things in real life. In the Elephant and the Mouse example (p. 91), making a switch-out for a whale and a fish help show the abstractness of the lesson being taught. It's not meant to just be about elephants and mice, but about how small, seemingly unimportant things (whether they be animals or people) can be very important. For ELLs, making such changes will expose them to more vocab words and the connections that come with them (e.g. whales are big, fish are small).

All in all, from now on I will look at reading as a three-step (rather than a one-step) process, and look for ways to use Gibbons' pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies to benefit my students, particularly ELLs.

- David Koch

Comment on "Link Between Literacy and Technology"

(For some reason, the site wouldn't let me comment on Rachel's post directly, so here is what I wanted to say...)

Thanks, Rachel, for your post. Since I didn't read the article that you did, I liked how you talked about different categories covered by the author. It's interesting to see how, in some, books and internet have commonalities, while in others they have differences. I agree with what you say (in the "Asking Questions" section) about it being easier to get lost on the internet without mental guiding questions; did the author say why this is the case? I was also intrigued by the fact that your kindergartners are growing as internet readers. They read on the internet??? I was in a fourth grade class last semester in which the students used computers regularly, but I never realized that they were being introduced to computers in school at such a young age.

- David Koch

"Do we really need yet another literacy?..."

After having read David Buckingham’s “Defining Digital Literacy” I am somewhat confused as to what exactly Buckingham was trying to argue throughout his essay. I, like my fellow classmate David Koch, expected a definition of what Buckingham believed digital literacy to be, however, was left feeling nearly insulted, filled by thoughts that I should not even be using a computer or checking my e-mail without knowing how my clicking of the keyboard could cause letters to appear on the screen, not to mention how I am able to send those letters to a computer at a completely different location to be accessed for someone else’s viewing pleasure.

What I am trying to say is that I think Buckingham’s expectations for what literacy needs to be are a little bit outrageous and over the top. I do understand that in order to incorporate new digital media and technologies into the classroom we “need to provide students with the means of understanding them” but I do not think that it needs to be taught to the extent that Buckingham suggests in order for it to qualify as a form of “literacy” (Buckingham 1).

I believe that such technologies and digital media can, and should, be incorporated into the classroom as a matter of informing and educating students. I believe that by including such aspects of technology in the classroom we truly are building our students competence and literacy in those areas. When incorporating such media in the classroom it is very important to introduce students to this media through a framework similar to Buckingham’s conceptual, four criteria framework (representation, language, production, audience), but I do not think that this needs to be done in such a tediously unnecessary manner (5).

I believe that students can learn to use these digital media and new technologies to further their education, and I also believe that students can be “scaffolded” to analyze these media in a critical manner. It is a developed and learned skill very similar to the ability to intellectually and critically analyze print; an ability obtained by individuals whom many would consider to be “literate”.

An attempt to define 'literacy'

What is 'literacy'? This week, I read an article called "Defining Digital Literacy" by David Buckingham. I was sure that, with such a relevant title, I would get an answer to my question. Instead, I still find myself unsure of the answer to this question, about which my mind has been unsettled since we began talking about the concept in class last week. So, rather than give up, in what follows I will talk through Buckingham a little and try to put my finger on what sort of definition might come out of this article.

Buckingham talks a lot about what literacy is not. It is not simply "a vague synonym for 'competence', or even 'skill'" (Buckingham, p. 2), nor is it "restricted to mechanical skills or narrow forms of functional competence" (p. 3). This is a repetitive theme throughout the article, that literacy is about more than sufficient abilities a person has with respect to information. But what is included in this "more than"? According to Buckingham, the way 'economic literacy', 'emotional literacy' and 'spiritual literacy' are often conceptualized discount them as literacies, as far as he is concerned (p. 2). But why? In philosophical terms, we need some necessary and sufficient conditions of 'literacy'; in layman's terms, we need to know all the properties that make literacy literacy.

Using Buckingham, here's my best crack at a definition of 'literacy' at this point:

Literacy is the possession of a set of skills which allow an individual to navigate through, critically evaluate, and gain knowledge from some means of communication.

Thus, the literate individual is in the possession of a skills set. This skills set includes, but (according to Buckingham's constant prescription) is not limited to, the functional or instrumental ability to use some means of communication. I have made explicit two things that Buckingham implies must be added to instrumental skill in a good definition of 'literacy': (1) the ability to evaluate some medium of communication, which means being able to analyze the representation, language, production, and audience of some content of that medium (pp. 5-10), and (2) the ability to internalize informational content, thereby transforming it into knowledge (p. 5). Finally, I think economic, emotional and spiritual 'literacies' all fail to meet one of the three criteria - navigation, evaluation, and knowledge-gaining - outlined in the definition.

I'm glad for this experience of making an attempt to define 'literacy'. I still don't feel entirely confident that I'm understanding the whole idea of literacy, but I get it more now than I did yesterday. Hopefully, I'll be able to say the same after class on Wednesday, when I hear from others about what they read!

David Koch

Link Between Literacy and Technology

For this week we all had to read a separate article. The article I read is entitled, "Reading on the Internet: The Link Between Literacy and Technology," by Elizabeth Schmar-Dobler. I was immediately intrigued as to what this article was going to entail, mostly because of my own struggles with technology. The article first describes a couple of students and their separate dealings with the internet. It then goes on the say that "new forms of literacy call upon students to know how to read and write not only in the print world but also in the digital world" (p. 81). I found this very interesting because quite frankly I had never thought of it in this particular way. However, the more I think about it, the more I would have to agree. There is so much text as well as an abundance of distractions on the internet and it is important for students to learn how to use these technologies to their advantage.

The article also provides seven strategies students use when reading both print as well as internet text. Some of these strategies entail different aspects when dealing with print versus internet text but for the most part they are extremely similar. The strategies include:
-Activating prior knowledge: In both books and internet the "reader recalls experiences and information relating to the topic."

-Monitoring and Repairing Comprehension: In books, the "reader adjust reading rate depending on the purpose of reading" while internet reading entails "skimming and scanning."

-Determining Important Ideas: In both books and internet the "reader analyzes text to determine which parts are important."

-Synthesizing: In both books and internet the "reader sifts important from unimportant details to determine the kernel of an idea."

-Drawing inferences: In both books and internet the "reader reads between the lines, using background knowledge and text to help fill in the gaps."

-Asking questions: In books, "questions give purpose to reading by motivating the reader to continue" while in internet, "guiding questions must be in forefront of reader's mind or getting lost or sidetracked is likely."

-Navigating: In books, the "reader uses the feature of print text to search for information" while in the internet, the "reader figures out features of the internet in order to search for information."

Overall I found this article to be interesting and engaging. It has made me think of my field expereinces with my kindergarten class and watching them grow as both readers of print and internet readers.

Group Work

While reading chapters one and two of Gibbons this week I found her thoughts and words on the importance of group work extremely interesting. I am in a kindergarten classroom for field placement and reading this made me realize that my CT does not have her class participate in much group work. I am wondering if this is simply because of how young the students are or if it is something else. Personally I believe that even though the students are young they should be at the very least starting to talk and interact with each other on assignments.

I also found it interesting that one of the tasks in making group work effective is having the students talk. Again, not much group is done in my CT's classroom and even when the students are working on their assignments at their assigned tables talking is not always allowed. I had never realized the lack of group work in this kindergarten class until reading the in depth look at the importance of it in chapter two.

After reading and wondering why my CT does not have her class interact in group work, I am definitely going to ask her for her thoughts on group work and what she thinks she does to apply this important concept into her classroom.

Scaffolding

In the first chapter of "Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning" Gibbons introduces the reader to the metaphorical concept of scaffolding. This serves as preparation for what is to come in the following chapters as scaffolding, and how to go about scaffolding in an effective manner is the central focus of the book. In this section she describes scaffolding as providing assistance to students so that they can learn, through the introduction of "new skills, concepts, and levels of understanding"; in other words it is teaching students how they can perform or carry out a task so that they can begin to perform that task on their own, without teacher assistance (Gibbons 10). From past experience and prior teacher education courses I understand how important effective scaffolding truly is in the classroom, from early elementary all the way through college. Scaffolding should play a large role when planning lessons and structuring curriculum, however, because effective scaffolding is such an important aspect in regards to student learning it can be difficult to give each student the support that they need. Being that every student learns in different ways and at different paces it can be easy for a teacher to teach the class in one manner not tending to the individual needs of each student, which is exactly the importance of scaffolding.

This week in placement I noticed a couple examples of wonderful scaffolding by my corresponding teacher. Breaking the students up into small groups, each group is assigned to a different "center" where they must complete some task in regards to building literacy comprehension. In these centers students are required to work together to complete the different activities; each center has a different activity that they are supposed to complete. I found this to be a good example of scaffolding because when the students initially began the centers activities they were new to each task, however, as they engage in these activities throughout the year they become more familiar with them and are able to complete them without the assistance of their teacher. They are learning new skills and building comprehension through the effective scaffolding provided by the teacher and additionally their peers.

Thoughts on Gibbons, chapters 1 & 2

I really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Gibbons for class this week. The idea of a contextualized concept of language proficiency - one that does not blur contexts or make far-reading conclusions on the basis of singularly assessed contexts - is not new to me. In the past, I have read an article by Jim Cummins (not one of the articles cited in the first two chapters of Gibbons) where he lays out a similar argument. In this other article (I don't have publishing information, i.e. its date, to provide), Cummins analyzes the difference between conversational and academic proficiency, drawing on data showing that the development of the latter taking years longer than that of the former, which is also discussed in Gibbons, chapter 1.

Gibbons goes beyond what I read of Cummins, however, in that he relates language learning to more overarching pedagogical theories. Frankly, I was surprised that the student-centered, "progressive" approach to teaching was not the one supported by Gibbons in his analysis. After all, it places a premium on "the individual child's active construction of knowledge" and on their "intelligent inquiry and thought" (Gibbons 2002, p. 6), which are steps in the right direction from the teacher-centered, "banking" approach. Yet, like the banking approach, the progressive approach does not explain (nor leave explanatory room for) the importance of language development between individuals in the classroom (p. 7).

Herein lies a key connection between more general pedagogy and second language learning, and a second way that Gibbons improves on the Cummins article I read. The following is a little complex (and perhaps needs some clarification?), so bear with me. If knowledge creation happens mostly inside the mind of the teacher (in the banking approach) or that of the student (in the progressive approach), then the main issue of language learning in the classroom is translational: already-made meaning needs to be understood by the student in their second language. At best, the relationship between conversational and academic language proficiency is left ignored.

The pedagogical theory Gibbons adopts, which he calls the "collaborative" theory of learning, states that learning happens in the interaction between teacher and student, or even student and student. In this theory, students learn when an expert, someone more knowledgeable in some content area, provides scaffolding for the student, connecting the student's current understanding with his/her potential understanding in coordination with the expert. As the student climbs the scaffold, so-to-speak, already-used scaffolding is removed, since by that point the student no longer needs the expert's support at that level. Most importantly for the current discussion, under the collaborative theory meaning-making is an inherently linguistic endeavor. Thus, language-learning lies at the heart of content-learning; furthermore, conversational language is used to make meaning, whereby it is transformed into academic language (and whereby a connection between the two in the classroom seems well-established).

This first chapter provides a great basis for what is written in chapter 2. Gibbons gives much practical advice for what group work should entail from the perspective of second language learning. Yet the importance of group work itself is only guaranteed by a broader pedagogical theory that gives value to active interpersonal communication within the classroom. Gibbons has me convinced: only the collaborative theory does this successfully, taking seriously the difficulties faced in the classroom by second language learners.